How Orwellian Is This?

Scary chain emails and videos are starting to percolate on the internet, breathlessly claiming, for example, to "uncover" the truth about the President’s health insurance reform positions.

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Huh?

I can understand the desire on the part of people in the White House to keep a handle on the claims and arguments being used in a policy debate, but . . . isn't it their job to keep track of those?

I mean, just yesterday there was that video of the former totally objective ABC reporter turned Democratic White House staffer Linda Douglass explaining that that was one of her jobs (along with, no doubt, others at the White House). She even showed us her computer, which was using the lame program Microsoft Internet Explorer to connect to the Internet, so we know she can read blogs with the best of them.

But the White House seems concerned that it doesn't have the resources to monitor everything that goes on in America "below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation." So they're asking citizens to report "fishy" statements made by other American citizens to the White House.

Color me skeptical, but creating a program to "flag" e-mails and web sites that take a contrary position to the White House's–a program that relies on citizens reporting their fellow citizens when they send or post something that "seems fishy" (meaning: contrary to the message the White House wants to get out)–strikes me as a misstep.

I imagine whoever is monitoring the e-mail address will get a lot of protests in addition to whatever tips come in. And there will be negative coverage of this on the Internet.

On the other hand, the folks at ReasonTV are taking a constructive attitude . . .

All this free, unfiltered communication is a dangerous thing. Free speech is meant for those with a press pass, not for the Great Unwashed.
Ratting out your family, friends and neighbors is a time-honored tradition in totalitarian states… why not try it here, too? What could it hurt? You’ll just be helping your government to help you.

There is 100% support for Obamacare. Everyone wants it. You and everyone else who says otherwise deep down wants it, just you’re being paid to say otherwise. I’m being snarky of course as what is being done with the White House snitch program is scary and is illogical on its face.

Apparently, free speech is no longer allowed if there is dissent involved….
Hmmmm…..
I seem to remember that a while back it was considered PATRIOTIC to disagree with the government.
Times have sure changed…JUST IN THE LAST YEAR!!

They want me to report “fishy” info on Obamacare. Will they accept Obama’s statements as evidence? >:-D
Tim J,
“Ratting out your family, friends and neighbors is a time-honored tradition in totalitarian states… why not try it here, too? ”
Ohhhhh…you are so going down, you fascist, neo-con mouth-piece of the criminal George Bush!!!!!!!!!!

This is insane. The Blog post says:There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.
First of all, these bills in the house and senate are not secret. Anyone can read them if they want to either fall asleep or practice their speed reading. Any disinformation would quickly be refuted by actual quotes.
Secondly, if they are using the term, “disinformation,” disingenuously, as a way to inoculate readers on the internet from a proper discussion, including contrary opinions, shame on them. If they mean that disinformation is any opinion that doesn’t correspond to the information they are pushing, double shame on them, since they push biased information as much as the next incredibly large, complex bureaucracy.
It is a pity one cannot sue the federal government. This would be classic example of an attempt to interfere with free speech and free assembly.
The Chicken

“they’ve announced that the amended forms of the bills won’t be available this month, last I heard”
Hmm, I wonder if that’s enough to delay a vote. I suppose it will — they probably wouldn’t want it to look TOO much like a blank check.

Just remember this guy came out of IL, land of Blogojevich (sp?), Mayor Daley, et al. The man is creepy with this snitch business. Wait, aren’t snitches those flying things you catch when playing Quidditch?

They may realize how stupid they’ve been when 99.9% of the reports they get are of fishy disinformation that came from the Whitehouse to begin with.
I’ve done my little part. Don’t be cute or angry, just deadpan-serious-here’s-some-disinformation-I-found-hope-this-helps.

Actually, you can only sue the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which provides for limited redress in cases of tort offenses (personal injury or property damage). Since this is a case of a sovereign power attempting to incite spying, this is not a tort. If may violate all sorts of laws about free speech and freedom of assembly, but this would make it a criminal act, not a civil one and hence, to able to be sued. I suppose, in principle, the justice department could instigate criminal proceedings against the executive branch, but this is about as likely to occur as the health care plan is to save babies from abortion.
On the other hand, I am not a lawyer, just a chicken.
The Chicken

That should be:
IT may violate all sorts of laws about free speech and freedom of assembly, but this would make it a criminal act, not a civil one and hence, to NOT to be sued.
Apparently, I’m not a typist, either.
The Chicken

Surely, Jimmy, such mundane considerations as people’s alleged rights don’t apply to those who have our best interests at heart, even if they have to force us into them. Surely.
“Just remember this guy came out of IL, land of Blogojevich (sp?), Mayor Daley, et al.”
No! No! Too late! We’ve pawned him off on the rest of you, and we’re not taking him back!
Now, since the Feds took the hair guy, maybe we can get Prince Richie into the IOC, so he can go live in Geneva (the one not in Illinois) most of the year.
What we really need is an out for our once-prolife (when he was a congressman from downstate) now-proabortion senior senator.

How is it ‘responsiveness to constituent concerns’ to seek to learn about and oppose comments that ‘seem fishy’? It reminds me of ‘responsiveness to constituent concerns’ for Republicans in Chicago (most blatantly under Daley-père), wherein trash wouldn’t be picked up and other harassments.